Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
Also, apparently Japan plans on mining someone...that's a lot of minelayers.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Jan 11th 2012, 10:21pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Since Springsharp calculates its seakeeping at flank speed, and seakeeping degrades substantially at higher speeds, I generally accept lower numbers for seakeeping at those higher speeds. 0.72 is lower than I'd go myself, but it doesn't strike me as all that unrealistic for a 37-knot DD.
Quoted
Originally posted by BruceDuncan
A very good point; and there's nothing in our rules about a minimum level of seakeeping. As you say, it is also lower than I would accept.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Since Springsharp calculates its seakeeping at flank speed, and seakeeping degrades substantially at higher speeds, I generally accept lower numbers for seakeeping at those higher speeds. 0.72 is lower than I'd go myself, but it doesn't strike me as all that unrealistic for a 37-knot DD.
Quoted
Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Since Springsharp calculates its seakeeping at flank speed, and seakeeping degrades substantially at higher speeds, I generally accept lower numbers for seakeeping at those higher speeds. 0.72 is lower than I'd go myself, but it doesn't strike me as all that unrealistic for a 37-knot DD.
I've come round to the view that "poor seakeeping" basically would translate to the vessel having to slow down due to sea state prior to a vessel with "normal" seakeeping.
< ... >
One of my various unfledged projects is to go figure out at which speeds my various vessels hit which seakeeping marks, but I'll never get to that timesink...
Quoted
I used the main belt to sim the cargo. Set the length and height of the belt so that 1 unit (=1 inch) is equal to 100 tons.
Fuki Maru, Japan Cargo Ship laid down 1942
Displacement:
11,248 t light; 11,519 t standard; 12,923 t normal; 14,046 t full load
15,380 GRT
Displacement light (empty): 3,098 t
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Jan 24th 2012, 5:40am)
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
Am I stealing Ford or Peugeot or Lockheed or Vickers or any other non-Japanese firm?
Quoted
The tonnage cost is far too high
Quoted
he's just razzing you about it in return.
Quoted
Perhaps TC's willing to let you have the Liberty Ship
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Jan 24th 2012, 10:07pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by Rooijen10
Wiki is rubbish when it comes to Japanese merchant ship data.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH